ENRIQUE PEREZ V. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, No. 16-15647 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED DEC 23 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ENRIQUE PEREZ; BELLA PEREZ, Plaintiffs-Appellants, No. 16-15647 D.C. No. 3:15-cv-02196-RS v. MEMORANDUM* BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2016** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Enrique Perez and Bella Perez appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. Plaintiffs have waived their appeal of the dismissal of their claims under 15 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). U.S.C. §§ 1692e and 1962f because the district court dismissed these claims with leave to amend and plaintiffs failed to file an amended complaint. See Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc., 710 F.3d 946, 973 n.14 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to replead claims after dismissal with leave to amend amounts to waiver). Plaintiffs have waived their appeal of the dismissal of their claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g by failing to address how the district court erred in dismissing it. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); see also Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim . . . .”). We do not consider allegations and arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 16-15647

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.